5 ms·

Here's a good comment thread from cpptools extension: https://github.com/microsoft/vscode-cpptools/discussions/12688 https://github.com/microsoft/vscode-cpptoo

Here's a good comment thread from cpptools extension: https://github.com/microsoft/vscode-cpptools/discussions/12688 https://github.com/microsoft/vscode-cpptools/discussions/126... Having not delved too deeply into building from source, this post suggests it's not even possible. We will need some new terminology to express that a given codebase is OSS licensed and the build dependencies additionally are OSS licensed.

toofy 2y ago
wow, thanks for posting this. in a few tiny comments it demonstrates precisely the problem the larger ecosystem is facing and will almost certainly get much much worse sooner than we think.
kragen 2y ago
wow, that's really troubling. people in the future will wonder what we were talking about after microsoft memory-holes that thread
- wruza 2y ago
  https://web.archive.org/web/20240927000850/https://github.com/microsoft/vscode-cpptools/discussions/12688 https://web.archive.org/web/20240927000850/https://github.co...
  - kragen 2y ago
    the internet archive isn't going to last much longer, maybe five or ten years as brewster says: 'governments burn libraries' there's a reason that the first backup of the internet archive is at alexandria and that the first time brewster started the internet archive it was a for-profit company called 'alexa'
pxc 2y ago
VSCode is not open-source, and neither is this extension. Much F/OSS on Windows and virtually all F/OSS on macOS has proprietary build dependencies (e.g., MSVC on Windows, Xcode and various Apple frameworks and GUI toolkits on macOS), but is still itself F/OSS. It's true that such software doesn't promote or embody software freedom to the same extent as free software written for free platforms and built with free toolchains and dependencies. But this case isn't about that. Reread the comment of maintainer (presumably an MS employee) at the end: > I'm sorry to let you know that our license also prohibits using our extension in alternate distributions of VS Code - only the official one produced by Microsoft may be used. So even if we did produce a RISC-V version, you wouldn't be licensed to use it with Code Server. That's just proprietary, software plain and simple. Recall freedom 0 of the free software definition: > The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). In the way that third-party distributions of VSCode do not come with the same rights to extend the software or use it in combination with compatible extensions as the first-party distribution does, VSCode also fails the test of freedom 3, regardless of the license of much of the code: > The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this. It's not that your modified copies must give your users the same rights to inspect and modify the code as you had (that's copyleft) but that you are unable to give them such rights. MS does this not entirely through the licensing of VSCode but also through the licensing of certain extensions, but the actual outcome is the same. It's not a different story for the term open-source. This: > May we ask why you'd like to do this? If you're planning to redistribute the language server binaries as your own custom offering, please note that our runtime license prohibits that. means that the extension fails condition 1 (the redistribution criterion) of the open-source definition. And VSCode not allowing modified redistributions the same rights as the original fails condition 3 (the derived works criterion). Neither VSCode nor this extension is open-source. They're both just proprietary software with some open-source components. Free Software Definition: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en#four-freedoms https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en#four-freedoms Open-Source Definition: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd Note that these are not definitions in the ordinary lexographical sense. They are terms that were created with explicit social and technical purposes in mind, by and for organized movements. This isn't an argument from the dictionary but a reminder of the purposes of these concepts.
- jdiez17 2y ago
  > VSCode is not open-source Partly true, partly false. VS Code is FOSS (MIT license). The VS Code binary that Microsoft distributes is freeware (proprietary license). > and neither is this extension Correct. > That's just proprietary, software plain and simple. Indeed, the Pylance extension is proprietary software. > In the way that third-party distributions of VSCode do not come with the same rights to extend the software or use it in combination with compatible extensions False. Third party distributions of VSCode can absolutely use compatible extensions. The license of certain proprietary extensions does not allow you to use them with third party distributions of VSCode. > It's not that your modified copies must give your users the same rights to inspect and modify the code as you had (that's copyleft) but that you are unable to give them such rights. MS does this not entirely through the licensing of VSCode but also through the licensing of certain extensions The VSCode license prevents you from reverse engineering, modifying it, and you agree to send some telemetry to Microsoft. You're correct that the MS distribution is not FOSS. It's the same with Chrome (the code base) and Chrome (the browser binaries that Google distributes). > Neither VSCode nor this extension is open-source. Again, to be clear: VSCode (the binary) is not OSS, but the source code used to build VSCode (the binary) *is* OSS. Pylance (the extension) is straight up proprietary software. > Note that these are not definitions in the ordinary lexographical sense. They are terms that were created with explicit social and technical purposes in mind, by and for organized movements. This isn't an argument from the dictionary but a reminder of the purposes of these concepts. The MIT license represents a different view on the social and technical goals of open source software. It's much simpler than the GPLs and only has one obligation for the user/redistributors: display a copyright notice. It's not as copyleft as the GPLs.
  - lozenge 2y ago
    Building the open source repo gets you something which isn't VSCode. It doesn't install a lot of VSCode extensions, therefore you shouldn't call it VSCode and shouldn't say VSCode is FOSS.
    - actionfromafar 2y ago
      This is very well put. If the open source repo was named "VSCodium" it would communicate better what is going on. (Chrome / Chromium.) Edit: to be clear, I think Microsoft should offer VSCodium themselves and state clearly that they take that, bundle it with other stuff, and are calling that blob VSCode.
awson 2y ago
AFAUI, this extension uses proprietary C++ front-end commercially licensed from EDG. The same front-end powers their Visual Studio IDE (not Code). Also, AFAIK, there exist an alternative `clangd`-based C++ extension, which is fully open-source (but I could be wrong).
- gpderetta 2y ago
  clangd is fully open source. You can build it yourself from llvm sources. It works fine with emacs LSP support. I never used the proprietary extension so I can't compare the functionality, stability nor speed.
karl42 2y ago
Debian splits their distribution into three components: * main (free software) * non-fee * contrib (free software that depends on software outside of main, so usually non-free software) While I am not fond of the "contrib" terminology, I think this categorization makes a lot of sense.
- okl 2y ago
  Additionally, there is now `non-free-firmware`, e.g., http://ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/testing/non-free-firmware/ http://ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/testing/non-free-firmware...

toofy 2y ago

wow, thanks for posting this. in a few tiny comments it demonstrates precisely the problem the larger ecosystem is facing and will almost certainly get much much worse sooner than we think.

kragen 2y ago

wow, that's really troubling. people in the future will wonder what we were talking about after microsoft memory-holes that thread

wruza 2y ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20240927000850/https://github.com/microsoft/vscode-cpptools/discussions/12688 https://web.archive.org/web/20240927000850/https://github.co...
- kragen 2y ago
  the internet archive isn't going to last much longer, maybe five or ten years as brewster says: 'governments burn libraries' there's a reason that the first backup of the internet archive is at alexandria and that the first time brewster started the internet archive it was a for-profit company called 'alexa'

pxc 2y ago

VSCode is not open-source, and neither is this extension. Much F/OSS on Windows and virtually all F/OSS on macOS has proprietary build dependencies (e.g., MSVC on Windows, Xcode and various Apple frameworks and GUI toolkits on macOS), but is still itself F/OSS. It's true that such software doesn't promote or embody software freedom to the same extent as free software written for free platforms and built with free toolchains and dependencies. But this case isn't about that. Reread the comment of maintainer (presumably an MS employee) at the end: > I'm sorry to let you know that our license also prohibits using our extension in alternate distributions of VS Code - only the official one produced by Microsoft may be used. So even if we did produce a RISC-V version, you wouldn't be licensed to use it with Code Server. That's just proprietary, software plain and simple. Recall freedom 0 of the free software definition: > The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). In the way that third-party distributions of VSCode do not come with the same rights to extend the software or use it in combination with compatible extensions as the first-party distribution does, VSCode also fails the test of freedom 3, regardless of the license of much of the code: > The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this. It's not that your modified copies must give your users the same rights to inspect and modify the code as you had (that's copyleft) but that you are unable to give them such rights. MS does this not entirely through the licensing of VSCode but also through the licensing of certain extensions, but the actual outcome is the same. It's not a different story for the term open-source. This: > May we ask why you'd like to do this? If you're planning to redistribute the language server binaries as your own custom offering, please note that our runtime license prohibits that. means that the extension fails condition 1 (the redistribution criterion) of the open-source definition. And VSCode not allowing modified redistributions the same rights as the original fails condition 3 (the derived works criterion). Neither VSCode nor this extension is open-source. They're both just proprietary software with some open-source components. Free Software Definition: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en#four-freedoms https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en#four-freedoms Open-Source Definition: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd Note that these are not definitions in the ordinary lexographical sense. They are terms that were created with explicit social and technical purposes in mind, by and for organized movements. This isn't an argument from the dictionary but a reminder of the purposes of these concepts.

jdiez17 2y ago
> VSCode is not open-source Partly true, partly false. VS Code is FOSS (MIT license). The VS Code binary that Microsoft distributes is freeware (proprietary license). > and neither is this extension Correct. > That's just proprietary, software plain and simple. Indeed, the Pylance extension is proprietary software. > In the way that third-party distributions of VSCode do not come with the same rights to extend the software or use it in combination with compatible extensions False. Third party distributions of VSCode can absolutely use compatible extensions. The license of certain proprietary extensions does not allow you to use them with third party distributions of VSCode. > It's not that your modified copies must give your users the same rights to inspect and modify the code as you had (that's copyleft) but that you are unable to give them such rights. MS does this not entirely through the licensing of VSCode but also through the licensing of certain extensions The VSCode license prevents you from reverse engineering, modifying it, and you agree to send some telemetry to Microsoft. You're correct that the MS distribution is not FOSS. It's the same with Chrome (the code base) and Chrome (the browser binaries that Google distributes). > Neither VSCode nor this extension is open-source. Again, to be clear: VSCode (the binary) is not OSS, but the source code used to build VSCode (the binary) *is* OSS. Pylance (the extension) is straight up proprietary software. > Note that these are not definitions in the ordinary lexographical sense. They are terms that were created with explicit social and technical purposes in mind, by and for organized movements. This isn't an argument from the dictionary but a reminder of the purposes of these concepts. The MIT license represents a different view on the social and technical goals of open source software. It's much simpler than the GPLs and only has one obligation for the user/redistributors: display a copyright notice. It's not as copyleft as the GPLs.
- lozenge 2y ago
  Building the open source repo gets you something which isn't VSCode. It doesn't install a lot of VSCode extensions, therefore you shouldn't call it VSCode and shouldn't say VSCode is FOSS.
  - actionfromafar 2y ago
    This is very well put. If the open source repo was named "VSCodium" it would communicate better what is going on. (Chrome / Chromium.) Edit: to be clear, I think Microsoft should offer VSCodium themselves and state clearly that they take that, bundle it with other stuff, and are calling that blob VSCode.

awson 2y ago

AFAUI, this extension uses proprietary C++ front-end commercially licensed from EDG. The same front-end powers their Visual Studio IDE (not Code). Also, AFAIK, there exist an alternative `clangd`-based C++ extension, which is fully open-source (but I could be wrong).

gpderetta 2y ago
clangd is fully open source. You can build it yourself from llvm sources. It works fine with emacs LSP support. I never used the proprietary extension so I can't compare the functionality, stability nor speed.

karl42 2y ago

Debian splits their distribution into three components: * main (free software) * non-fee * contrib (free software that depends on software outside of main, so usually non-free software) While I am not fond of the "contrib" terminology, I think this categorization makes a lot of sense.

okl 2y ago
Additionally, there is now `non-free-firmware`, e.g., http://ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/testing/non-free-firmware/ http://ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/testing/non-free-firmware...